ron paul=awesome/kickass?
Collapse
X
-
-
As the richest country in the world.....why shouldn't we take care of our own?
Why shouldn't we have disaster relief?
Affordable health care.
Decent schools that educate and prepare our children for the future.
Safe food, air, and water.
Reasonable housing.
Stable employment.
A living wage.
Ron Paul isn't for these things, he's for throwing away any of the decent things we have left and frankly, it's insulting and repulsive.
Just because government has fucked it up with greed, corruption, and inept management doesn't mean these services and program can't work.
It's utter bullshit and the ramblings of a nutty old man saying we shouldn't have disaster relief. When he wants to allow the free markets to regulate themselves.......I assume he means insurance companies who are notorious for refusing to pay claims to disaster victims, too.
The government needs to be fixed but to say every humane program and every decent thing government could do is wrong is stupid.
We as a people seen a need for this and have supported these programs.....the programs are fine it's the idiots that are in charge of them.
Get rid of special interests group, super PAC's and change how campaigns are allowed to be funded.
Get the lazy and apathetic American People off their asses and involved in the government we have and you'd solve 90% of the problems we have.
The problem is.....the American people can't be bothered and want fixes that don't require effort, involvement, or thought. We the People fucked this country up....not government.Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first placeComment
-
Affordable health care.
Decent schools that educate and prepare our children for the future.
Safe food, air, and water.
Reasonable housing.
Stable employment.
A living wage.
Ron Paul isn't for these things, he's for throwing away any of the decent things we have left and frankly, it's insulting and repulsive.
Just because government has fucked it up with greed, corruption, and inept management doesn't mean these services and program can't work.
Did you read that before you hit 'post'?
It's utter bullshit and the ramblings of a nutty old man saying we shouldn't have disaster relief. When he wants to allow the free markets to regulate themselves.......I assume he means insurance companies who are notorious for refusing to pay claims to disaster victims, too.
The government needs to be fixed but to say every humane program and every decent thing government could do is wrong is stupid.
We as a people seen a need for this and have supported these programs.....the programs are fine it's the idiots that are in charge of them.
Get rid of special interests group, super PAC's and change how campaigns are allowed to be funded.
Get the lazy and apathetic American People off their asses and involved in the government we have and you'd solve 90% of the problems we have.
The problem is.....the American people can't be bothered and want fixes that don't require effort, involvement, or thought. We the People fucked this country up....not government.Comment
-
-
I have to assume you read the article since you bolded the part where Paul makes his point (and makes it well, I think) against bureaucracies and the charitability of Americans.
I don't see anything objectionable here? He's saying the Federal Government sucks at doing things, and that it should let people that are good at it do it instead. If anything, we should return the money to the states to be able to manage this because they'll do a better job of mobilizing the people to get it done.
At no point does he say "fuck 'em", what he does say is that you have to live intelligently. If you want to live in a disaster zone, fine ... get insurance like any responsible person.
Why do you think the government should subsidize recklessness and poor decision making, jhale?
Why do you think the government should take care of everyone instead of letting people take care of themselves, or charities help when they can't, jhale?
Why does the government have to be the answer to everything, jhale?No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
-
No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
Ron Paul agrees: allow health insurance to be actual insurance that is competed upon, and let regulation occur at the state level.
Ron Paul agrees: this should be provided at the state level.
Again, Ron Paul agrees: With protected property rights, no one has the right to pollute anyone else's land or water, and this should be strictly controlled. Again, by the states.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, again ... Ron Paul agrees: The problem with the housing market was that the Federal Reserve inflated it by printing money and artificially keeping interest rates low. There's nothing wrong with housing, except that it was abused by the Fed.
I'm starting to think you agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, kwame. Ron Paul argues this occurs due to the bubble and bust nature of the economy, again, created by the Fed
Are you sure you understand RP's positions and aren't a secret supporter? He fights for this every day: Each person has a right to the fruits of their labor, and the way the monetary system is used, your living wage decreases every year as inflation increases and your money becomes worth less until it becomes worthless.
I don't think it's possible to be any less correct...
wut
Did you read that before you hit 'post'?
Ron Paul argues that one of the primary functions of government is to enforce contract law. Anyone who breaks contracts should be gone after with extreme prejudice.
You really need to think about these things not in terms of how things "should be" but how things are.
ಠ_ಠ
I agree (though I don't think RP does)
How do they do that, again?
So you're saying ... the government isn't to blame at all?Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first placeComment
-
What ever politicians owned part of the trailer dealerships that sold to FEMA made out like bandits. Maybe these can be used to house tornado victims, that's of course if they haven't rotted away yet.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
-
Comment
-
I still see a need for the government to step in and aid when it's a major disaster......do I agree with FEMA? I do in principle....... FEMA fucked up Katrina but I attribute that more to who Bush appointed and not the agency itself. If we can marshal millions of people overseas to fight wars and do it effectively, why can't we mobilize people and resources here?
With Federal oversight......it goes back in my belief that Washington should decide the bigger issues that involve every American.....let the States decide the dumb shit like gay marriages but regulate health care and have a national benchmark set.......then let the States take it from there.
Nope.....when issues like integration, segregation and other standards have routinely been abused by the States government should step in. There should be a set standard, set by the government to insure that a minimum is being met.Look at how many environmental disasters have been allowed by the States. Here again, enforce a minimum standard and let the Sates take it from there.
On the education thing, think of it this way: When you get the federal government involved (or government at all), then you have to make it fair, because the government can't push an ideology. Can't teach creationism. Can't teach evolution without intelligent design. Can't teach either without flying spaghetti monsterism.
If you don't involve the government, and give choice back to the people, then they can teach whatever they want.
I agree with the abolition of the Fed but banks got us there, too and that was from free market non regulation........fair lending practices and Wall Street regulation should have a Federal minimum standard and let the States decide from there.
I agree (as does RP, actually) that there should be some regulation and that government should protect free markets. What we have right now, with all its abuses, is not a free market.
As I've said numerous times, I agree with a lot of what Grandpa Paul has to say......it's the stuff I don't that means I can't support him.
And on the face of it you say, "Oh my! He's a bad person! Who wouldn't support that?"
But when you listen to him, and understand why he does what he does, you see a consistency that there is a lot more depth to his reasoning than "this will be hard to explain to voters." I don't know everything you disagree with him on, but I hope you have taken the time to listen and understand what he is saying. I thought he was a crackpot, and got my initial exposure to him doing a little research to get some stuff to post on why I thought he was crazy.
But, I started listening to what he was saying, reading more on it and started to realize the guy was making a lot of sense (to me).
Not when a corporations get so big it dictates the market and not the market dictating it. From the railroads, steel, oil companies, Wall Street and on and on. There needs to be government regulations safeguarding us when it effects every American.
Yes I did.....if government can amass millions of people effectively and wag war......why can't they marshal people and resources to help in our own country
I could ask you the same thing about your support for a man that'll never be President
I look at it this way. Most of what RP thinks we should do is going to happen 1 of 2 ways:
1. The way we choose to do it
2. The way we're forced to do it
I'd rather have a choice in the matter
?
Does that mean the engagement is off between you twoComment
-
Comment
-
I don't know that I agree.
Sure, if someone is infringing on your property rights or causing you harm, the government should defend your rights. But there is a difference between taking someone to court over a violation of rights and giving the federal government the power to police everyone.
On the education thing, think of it this way: When you get the federal government involved (or government at all), then you have to make it fair, because the government can't push an ideology. Can't teach creationism. Can't teach evolution without intelligent design. Can't teach either without flying spaghetti monsterism.
If you don't involve the government, and give choice back to the people, then they can teach whatever they want.
There's hope for you yet!
I agree (as does RP, actually) that there should be some regulation and that government should protect free markets. What we have right now, with all its abuses, is not a free market.
I think he can do a better job of explaining his positions. A lot of people take a cursory glance at what he says and thinks "oh he's crazy/horrible/whatever". You can see jhale pop his head in here every once in a while and call the guy a racist and say something like "he didn't want to give rosa parks a medal" or "he didn't support civil rights".
But when you listen to him, and understand why he does what he does, you see a consistency that there is a lot more depth to his reasoning than "this will be hard to explain to voters." I don't know everything you disagree with him on, but I hope you have taken the time to listen and understand what he is saying. I thought he was a crackpot, and got my initial exposure to him doing a little research to get some stuff to post on why I thought he was crazy.
And on the face of it you say, "Oh my! He's a bad person! Who wouldn't support that?"
But, I started listening to what he was saying, reading more on it and started to realize the guy was making a lot of sense (to me).
The government doesn't do that. Government creates monopolies these days. Look at the Credit Bureaus. They have a monopoly that no one else can compete with (by law!) and control your financial future. Heck, look at the biggest monopoly of them all: The Federal Reserve. A privately-owned institution (by some of the nation's largest banks) that controls the creation and infusion of money. Nothing is allowed to compete with it.
'Effectively' is probably the sticking point. I agree that government can achieve a lot of things. It's just that I don't think it does hardly any of them very well, and they are controlled by and serve the wealthy.
I support the cause; RP is just the man in front right now. There will be others after him.
I look at it this way. Most of what RP thinks we should do is going to happen 1 of 2 ways:
1. The way we choose to do it
2. The way we're forced to do it
I'd rather have a choice in the matter
Until the majority speaks up we'll never have the best and the brightest running for office.
One only needs to look at the current GOP candidates and the Demos to see that.Last edited by kwame k; 03-06-2012, 02:52 AM.Originally posted by vandeleurE- Jesus . Playing both sides because he didnt understand the argument in the first placeComment
-
I've been hearing these same old arguments for the last 40 years. The federal government is regulating more than ever now and is bigger than ever now. Have things gotten better than they were 40 years ago? I'm a little wary of having even more regulation and even more government. Somehow I just don't see the advantages everyone is claiming are in it.No! You can't have the keys to the wine cellar!Comment
Comment